"This is a very shrewd, business-savvy organization. Nothing they do is spontaneous," she said. The conflict represents the different positions in the debate between animal-rights and animal-welfare advocates. Animal-rights groups like PETA believe animals shouldn't be used for research, food, products or entertainment. Animal-welfare groups like the alliance believe it's OK to use animals as long as they're treated humanely and thinks animal-rights groups exaggerate abuse claims to increase fund raising and membership.
Newkirk said animal-welfare groups don't want animal-rights groups to get their message out: "They don't want people to know what goes into their meat," she said.
Nonprofits, such as PETA, the alliance and the two pro-business centers, are all funded by private donations and permitted to give to other charitable organizations. The recipient doesn't have to be a nonprofit group but the money must go to charitable purposes. Federal law also prohibits nonprofits from financially supporting terrorism.
In a 12-page letter to the IRS in March, Arnold listed examples of PETA activities he said border on inappropriate behavior.
He requested a thorough examination of PETA's history, including paying legal fees for ALF and PETA members charged with misdemeanors and felonies. He also cited statements by Newkirk and Bruce Friedrich, PETA's vegan campaign coordinator, that Arnold believes encourage civil disobedience or more extreme tactics.
Newkirk said the group is just exercising its First Amendment rights. Strand said the group uses freedom of speech "as sword and shield."
Kerr, PETA's lawyer, said the group refuses to "condone or condemn actions attributed to ELF. (Actions) have occurred without any input or endorsement from PETA," he wrote to the House forest health subcommittee after its Feb. 12 hearing on eco-terrorism. Financial support for legal defense does not mean the group condones illegal actions, and to suggest it does is "wrong and inexcusable," he wrote.
Paying for someone's legal assistance is weak grounds to investigate a group's nonprofit status, said John Lawley, an American University law student who has researched PETA's tax-exempt status.
Such donations are a legitimate function of a nonprofit because they fall under social policy, which relieves the government of the obligation to provide defense counsel, he said.
But PETA's $1,500 donation to ELF could be grounds to lose its tax-exempt status, he said.
"Eco-terrorism clearly violates public policy," Lawley wrote in a recent study. "Activities employed by eco-terror groups call for the violent destruction of property and the express goal of inflicting economic damage on their perceived foes."
Kenneth Anderson, an American University College of Law professor who teaches nonprofit taxation, agreed: "Anything PETA does with money has to be a charitable purpose. How can it be a charitable purpose if they're giving it to a terrorist organization?"
The fact that the FBI labels ELF as a terrorist organization should be enough for the FBI to investigate PETA, he said.
In recent months, PETA officials have offered several explanations of the $1,500 check to ELF.
On Feb. 26, Newkirk told ABC News she did not remember the check. On March 4, the Associated Press quoted her as saying it was a request for funds for educational materials. The following day, she was quoted by KOMO-TV in Seattle as saying it was being used for "habitat protection."
Two days later, Lisa Lange, the group's director of policy and communications, said on a FOX News program the money was for a program about vegetarianism. On March 14, Kerr wrote to Rep. Scott McInnis, R-Colo., chairman of the House Forest and Forest Health Subcommittee, that the $1,500 was "to assist (former ELF spokesman Craig) Rosebraugh with legal expenses related to free-speech activities regarding animal protection issues."
Newkirk offered that same explanation in a recent interview with The Spokesman-Review, saying the money assisted Rose-braugh for legal defense when he was subpoenaed to testify before McInnis's subcommittee. Rosebraugh invoked the Fifth Amendment more than 50 times during that appearance.
She believes Rosebraugh is being harassed: "He's not even being charged with anything. This country is supposed to hold free speech sacred and not pursue those that say they're fed up with animal abuse and will pass off information from those that are exposing it."
But IRS records show the check was written in April 2001, 11 months before the hearing was held. The group said the check was "to support program activities," which means the organization could be cited for improper record keeping, Anderson said. PETA used the same description for every expenditure in 2001.
"Not keeping proper records is a killer right there," Anderson said. "Even if they say it's an honest mistake, it was a record-keeping error. If you want the tax exemption, you have to keep proper records."
The IRS does not have to prove PETA gave money for improper purposes on an improper record-keeping charge, he added.
Josh Penry, spokesman for the subcommittee, said PETA's recent answer that the $1,500 was intended for legal defense is "weak."
"You can move money around. ELF could have spent that however they wanted," he said.
Anderson said it's up to the IRS to determine what the penalty is if it revokes PETA's tax-exempt status. But, he said the real question is whether the IRS will investigate an allegation that amounts to such a tiny percent of the group's annual $14 million budget.
"Most large charities wind up making expenditures that after the fact are questionable," Anderson said. "It's very rare for the IRS to revoke the status of an organization for, relatively speaking, minor amounts. It's just crazy."
If the IRS does revoke PETA's tax-exempt status, however, it would have a significant impact on the organization, Anderson said.
"People who donate can't take a tax deduction," he said. "It would make life much tougher for the organization. But it's not the end of the world; we're not talking about people going to jail."
Congress also could pass a new law, he said.
"Congress could say any group that contributes one penny to a terrorist organization listed by the FBI could lose its tax-exempt status," Anderson said.
Nethercutt's proposed legislation would increase penalties and fines for eco-terrorism-related violations. If that bill is passed, he said, the next step could be to look into nonprofit tax law.
"It's unacceptable that any nonprofit in this country would support a self-described group like ELF," he said.
